The Supreme Court Has Spoken – Now It’s Parliament’s Turn
On 16 April 2025, the UK Supreme Court issued a ruling with serious implications for trans rights in the UK – and, whether they realise it or not, for non-binary people and eunuchs too.
The court ruled that under the Equality Act 2010, the word “sex” refers to “biological” sex, not legal sex acquired via a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). In short: even if you have a GRC stating you are legally female, that doesn’t necessarily entitle you to access protections or spaces reserved for women under the Equality Act. The same principle applies in reverse for trans men.
The case was brought by the group For Women Scotland, challenging the Scottish Government’s attempt to include trans women with GRCs in a law aimed at improving gender balance on public boards. The court found that this broader inclusion made the law “incoherent,” because it blurred the distinction between biological and legal sex – and that distinction, it said, is crucial for the functioning of the Equality Act.
Let’s be clear: this is a legal interpretation, not a moral declaration. The judges did not say trans people don’t exist or don’t matter. What they said was that, in the eyes of this specific law, sex means sex – as assigned at birth – and a GRC doesn’t override that for the purposes of certain legal protections or single-sex spaces.
That might sound technical, but its consequences are human. It creates legal doubt about whether trans women with GRCs can access women-only services, or whether trans men can be excluded from them. It gives legal cover to organisations wanting to exclude trans people from gendered spaces, regardless of their legal status.
And it highlights something trans people have known for years: a GRC isn’t a magic shield. It doesn’t guarantee recognition, safety, or equality – and now, we know it doesn’t always carry legal weight either.
What Even Is Biological Sex?
The Supreme Court’s ruling hinges on the phrase “biological sex” – as if that’s a simple, stable category we can all agree on. But the truth is: it’s not. It never was.
Ask three biologists to define sex, and you’ll get five answers – depending on whether they’re talking about chromosomes, genitalia, gametes, hormones, or social roles. So when a court insists that sex means biological sex, what are they actually referring to?
- Is it what the midwife saw at birth? That’s often just a guess based on external genitalia – and it’s wrong more often than we admit.
- Is it chromosomes? That would erase people with variations like XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), X (Turner syndrome), or androgen insensitivity, where someone might have XY chromosomes but develop a typically female body.
- Is it hormones? Those fluctuate throughout life – dramatically so in puberty, menopause, or after certain surgeries or treatments (hello fellow eunuchs!).
- Is it reproductive capacity? Then where do we place people who are infertile, post-menopausal, or who’ve had hysterectomies? (hello again eunuch pals!”
And what about intersex people – those born with ambiguous or mixed sex characteristics? The law barely acknowledges they exist, yet they are living proof that the binary system is flawed. So when the court says that “sex” is a fixed and determinable category for legal purposes, it’s ignoring not only trans and non-binary people, but also the biological diversity within so-called “biological sex” itself.
Let’s be blunt: this isn’t biology. It’s bureaucracy. It’s taking a complicated human reality and trying to fit it into a tick-box marked M or F. That might be convenient for forms and courtrooms – but it’s brutal for the people who don’t fit the box.
Biological essentialism is not science – it’s storytelling. And right now, it’s being used as a weapon.
Why This Affects More Than Just Trans Women
While this ruling focused on the status of trans women, its ripples go much further. For non-binary people – including eunuchs and others who don’t identify fully with male or female categories – the ruling reinforces the legal invisibility we already live with. The Gender Recognition Act only allows binary transitions: male to female or female to male. If your identity doesn’t fit neatly into that box, the law has nothing for you. You can’t get a GRC at all.
So when the Supreme Court says “sex means biological sex,” it’s not just excluding trans people from certain rights – it’s reminding non-binary people that we don’t even exist under this law. We don’t count. We’re not recognised.
And for those of us who are eunuchs – whether through choice, necessity, or medical intervention – the implications are especially grim. Eunuch is a recognised gender identity in many parts of the world, including under the third gender category in South Asia. But in the UK, we are classified by our birth sex, with no legal mechanism to assert anything else. This ruling doubles down on that. It tells us that even trans people with GRCs have limited recognition – so what chance do the rest of us have?
What the Supreme Court Can — and Can’t — Do
Here’s the thing: the court did not change the law. It interpreted it. That’s the job of the judiciary – to read the text of the law, look at Parliament’s intent, and make a ruling.
And this is where the hope lies: if Parliament made the law, then Parliament can change the law.
The Equality Act 2010 is not sacred scripture. It can be amended, updated, clarified – and it should be. This ruling should be a wake-up call to everyone who wants to live in a society where all people are treated with dignity and fairness, regardless of their gender identity or anatomy.
But that change won’t come overnight. It probably won’t come from this government. It may not come from the next. But that doesn’t mean we stop. The job now is to take this fight to Parliament – and if that fails, to take it there again, and again, and again, until change comes.
Where Do We Go From Here?
First, let’s not pretend this ruling doesn’t hurt. It does. It reminds us that trans and non-binary lives are still up for legal debate. That our identities are still considered inconvenient, theoretical, or expendable.
But we are not expendable. And we are not going away.
Second, this is not the end of the story. It’s a setback – a serious one – but we’ve seen setbacks before. Every civil rights movement does. What matters is what we do next.
Write to your MP. Join a protest. Support trans-led organisations. Challenge misinformation. Talk to your friends. Talk to your enemies. Make noise. Be impossible to ignore.
And most of all: don’t give up. The law has changed before. It will change again. We’re not asking for special treatment – we’re asking for recognition, equality, and the right to exist.
And we won’t stop asking until we get it.
Sources and Further Reading:
- UK Supreme Court Ruling – Full Judgment (PDF): https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2022-0068-judgment.pdf
- The Times coverage: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/supreme-court-ruling-women-80g2trkjn (Note: May be paywalled)
- Stonewall’s statement on the ruling: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/statement-supreme-court-decision-and-scottish-government
- For Women Scotland: https://forwomen.scot/
- Apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate – Gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate
Eunuchorn 
Leave a reply to Eunuchorn Cancel reply